Service health and current coverage: chains, wallet types, periods, limits and
how many wallets are tracked per chain. Useful when a query returns nothing and
it is unclear whether the data exists at all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "get_api_statusDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that the payload includes coverage metadata (chains, wallet types, periods, limits, per-chain wallet counts). It does not discuss rate limits or freshness of the coverage data, but for a read-only diagnostic this is solid context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, with the coverage scope front-loaded and the usage hint immediately after. Slightly list-like formatting rather than a crisp verb phrase, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and both the content scope and the diagnostic use case are stated. For a zero-parameter status tool this is nearly complete; only freshness/staleness of the coverage snapshot is unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not misstate any input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a concrete verb+resource (service health and current coverage) and enumerates the scope it reports: chains, wallet types, periods, limits, and wallets tracked per chain. It is clear what the tool answers, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_started or get_analytics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives a concrete triggering condition: 'Useful when a query returns nothing and it is unclear whether the data exists at all.' That is a real when-to-use cue, but it names no alternatives or contrasting conditions (e.g. when data absence is expected).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.